DOOMSDAY DEVICE — The signs on Capitol Hill suggest we might complete the Hail Mary pass, sink the three pointer at the buzzer — pick your favorite sports cliche — and avoid a catastrophic default with a last-minute deal to lift the debt limit. Because we usually do.

But let’s get one thing clear: No one is winning this game.

The result, assuming negotiators hammer out an agreement by early next week, will be nothing but a desultory tie, leaving the U.S. economy and everyone’s mental health unnecessarily dented.

The only true answer to what has become a regular game of chicken with the global economy — between politicians who mostly don’t understand the global economy — is to abolish the debt limit in its current form. Kill it. Soak it in gasoline and toss in a match. Consign the debt limit to the hottest corner of hell.

Because the debt limit, born of a World War I desire to not require a congressional vote every time Treasury needed to issue debt, has far outlived its usefulness. In the modern era, it has become a partisan weapon of mass destruction.

The limit, which has absolutely nothing to do with controlling spending but only allows Treasury to issue debt to cover money already spent by Congress, became fully weaponized following the Tea Party movement that drove the GOP into Hill control in the second half of President Barack Obama’s first term.

Prior to that, it had been mostly (though not universally) a snoozer of a vote, lifted scores of times with little ruckus, to do things like cover the costs of World War II.

In 1979, Congress passed a bill called “The Gephardt Rule,” after then-Rep. Richard Gephardt who introduced it. That measure automatically lifted the debt limit to cover any spending already approved by the legislature. And the ensuing Era of Good Feelings saw 15 hikes with limited drama. The rule was repealed in 2011.

Thus began a series of debt limit fights between Obama and congressional Republicans, including one in August 2011 that sparked the first credit downgrade in U.S. history. That drama rocked markets, slowed the economy and led to an austerity spending program that arguably suppressed growth for years.

And it led directly to the “Fiscal Cliff” drama of late 2012 that required a New Year’s Day 2013 vote in Congress to avoid a giant fiscal constriction in the form of lower spending and higher taxes.

During the Trump years, Republicans mostly rolled over for debt limit increases in part to cover deficits increased by Trump’s corporate and individual tax cuts. Which brings us to our current moment, where the GOP is once again wielding the limit as a cudgel to extact spending cuts and more stringent social program requirements out of the Biden White House to avoid default.

Thankfully, economic damage has been limited thus far to some down days in the stock market and increased costs for insuring against any default on U.S. debt. Failure to make a deal and an actual default could lead to a collapse in global financial markets — which are underpinned by Treasury bonds — and would almost certainly tilt a still inflation-plagued U.S. economy into recession. And all for no good reason.

“This is the fourth debt ceiling debacle in the past twelve years. Each one inches the nation closer to default and economic chaos,” Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at consulting firm RSM US, said in an email to Nightly. “It is past time to put this archaic and barbarous relic of the past to sleep. Permanently.”

None of this suggests the U.S. is on a sustainable spending path or that long term debt isn’t a problem.

It’s certainly not one at the moment, given continuing strong demand for U.S. debt and the size and power of the nation’s economy. But it’s the responsibility of Congress and the White House to agree on any long term changes to entitlements or other spending that reduce the size of the debt as a share of the nation’s economy. And to do it without the gun-to-the-head debt limit.

This, as it happens, is my final time writing for you in POLITICO Nightly (and I’ve enjoyed every moment we’ve spent together).

So let me go out with something I consider an absolutely non-partisan, common sense suggestion that would bring an end to this oft-repeated kabuki dance of economic insanity: Crumple up the debt limit, stuff it in the garbage and govern like grown ups.

Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at [email protected]. Or contact tonight’s author on Twitter at @EconomyBen. Ben is finishing up a great run at POLITICO, including writing some of our favorite Nightly pieces. Good luck to him in his future endeavors! Nightly won’t publish on Monday, May 29. We’ll be back in your inbox on Tuesday, May 30.

— Biden administration indicates they won’t invoke 14th Amendment: President Joe Biden will not invoke the 14th Amendment in the debt ceiling fight, Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo said. “I think the president and secretary are clear that that will not solve our problems now. So, yes, that is a no,” Adeyemo said on CNN this morning when asked about the issue. White House officials have said they don’t see the 14th Amendment — which says the “validity of the public debt” cannot be questioned — as a viable means of circumventing debt ceiling negotiations. Biden himself has said that he sees a bipartisan deal as the only option to the current standoff, casting doubt on the 14th Amendment as workable in public remarks.

— House Dems in No Labels-allied caucus are livid with No Labels: A group of House Democrats with ties to No Labels is turning on the centrist group after it attacked one of their founding members. On Tuesday, No Labels texted people who live in the district of Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.), criticizing the congressman for scoffing at their idea for a unity presidential ticket and claiming it could result in Donald Trump’s return to the presidency. The missive did not go over well with Schneider, who is a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus that No Labels helped start on the Hill. “No Labels’ attacks are the kind of division the country needs less of right now, and it’s a betrayal of every moderate and every problem solver in Congress,” Schneider said in a statement to POLITICO.

— Doug Mastriano won’t run for Senate in Pennsylvania ‘at this time’: MAGA firebrand Doug Mastriano said on Thursday evening that he is not running for Senate in Pennsylvania in 2024. “At this time, we have decided not to run for the U.S. Senate,” he said, “but to continue to serve in Harrisburg.” Mastriano promised to support whoever emerges as the Republican nominee in the Senate contest. But he has signaled that he will continue to be a thorn in the side of GOP officials. During his announcement Thursday, which took place on Facebook Live, he complained for several minutes about the Republican establishment abandoning him during the gubernatorial election last year.

A PIVOTAL WEEK — Will this go down as the week that the grand plan to deny Donald Trump the nomination fell apart? For months, reports POLITICO’s Jonathan Martin, high-level Republican lawmakers, donors and strategists eager to block Trump have described, in separate conversations, an endgame to the presidential primary.

When it becomes clear in the early state and national polling who is consolidating support, the most influential figures with ties to the lagging candidates will stage a sort of political intervention and tell them it’s time to quit and rally to the strongest alternative to Trump. Yet as spring turns to summer, traditionally the period when presidential hopefuls consider whether they’re gaining any traction, this vision seems more fantasy than strategy. In fact, if Trump does emerge as the GOP standard bearer next year we will look back on this week to grasp why, just like in 2016, he was able to take advantage of a divided opposition.

WHAT EMERGING DEM MAJORITY? — News outlets have been taking note of the mood of optimism in Democratic circles as they look to 2024, writes Ruy Teixeira in his Substack, The Liberal Patriot. This mood has been reinforced by the release of new data from the respected big data firm Catalist, which highlighted some favorable trends for the Democrats in the 2022 election. But before Democrats start popping the champagne corks, there are some other considerations to bear in mind.

While the mix effects of changing demographics may indeed favor the Democrats, these effects are fairly modest in any given election and can easily be overwhelmed by shifts in voter preference against the Democrats among unfavorable demographic groups. In addition, even among favorable demographic groups, the electoral benefit to the Democrats from their growth can be completely neutralized by shifts against the Democrats within those demographic groups. These points are as applicable to the changing generational mix as they have been to the changing racial mix.

DRESS REHEARSAL — Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez won’t be on the ballot when Spaniards vote in local elections Sunday — but he might as well be, writes Aitor Hernández-Morales.

Everyone in the country sees this weekend’s municipal votes as a dress rehearsal for the national election, which has to be held by the end of the year. That’s bad news for Socialist candidates like Antonio Muñoz, the mayor of Seville who just wants to be reelected on his own merit — but may end up losing his post because Sánchez is so unpopular.

In an interview with POLITICO, Muñoz complained that the national framing of the election — and the conservative party’s critiques of Sánchez — had undermined the possibility of real debate over how to improve Spain’s fourth-largest city, the capital of the country’s Andalusia region.

“If you want to just generate noise and have a debate about national politics: run for parliament, not mayor of Seville,” Muñoz said. “Me, I’ve stayed faithful to my slogan in these elections — Seville and only Seville — and I think that’s what voters want to hear about.”

The trouble for Muñoz — who has been a popular mayor — is that when Sevillanos head to the polls, they’ll be making their choice based not just on his performance — but on the reputation of his party.

“The polls suggest that three out of four Spaniards intend to base their vote on local matters, but a quarter admit their vote will depend on national issues,” said Pablo Simón, a political scientist at Madrid’s Carlos III university. “That’s problematic for some mayors because Sánchez is such a polarizing figure.”

The local election will take place just months before Sánchez’s fragile left-wing coalition government — the first in Spain’s history — is set to complete its four-year term in December.

Spain’s gross domestic product has been growing at a rate above the EU average, and unemployment has dropped to levels not seen since 2008. The country’s residents pay some of the lowest power prices in Europe, thanks to the Iberian Exception energy price cap. The European Commission has applauded Spain for efficient handling of its share of the bloc’s pandemic recovery cash.

And yet, within Spain, perception of the government is negative, and all of the parties in the ruling coalition have suffered a steep drop in the polls. Since May of last year, Sánchez’s Socialists have trailed behind the country’s conservative Popular Party, which is currently 7 percentage points ahead.

FOSSIL FUEL FIGHT — Amid huge expansions in the solar and wind spaces, Texas now leads the country in renewable energy. But the path towards more investment — and potentially someday a grid that runs 100 percent on renewables — is fraught. Lawmakers in the state have introduced bills to create incentives for more natural gas power plants to be built, which they believe are the answer to emergency energy during extreme weather events, like the storms that have taken out the entire Texas power grid. And now, Texas also leads the nation in the amount of backlog of renewable projects that still haven’t connected to the state’s main grid. Kristi E. Swartz reports for The Texas Tribune.